I know that it is a legal requirement for employers to pay for safety footwear if it is required. I also know that many employees want to choose a more expensive shoe/boot than is the legal requirement. Often this is done by the employer setting a sensible maximum limit which provides a reasonable range and if the employee wants something more expensive they can pay the difference. There is nothing illegal with the company setting a maximum limit is there, provided that it provides the proper protection required and is suitable for the user (ie there is no medical reason why the user needs a more expensive pair for example). Clearly the company does not wish to shirk its legal duties, but they are allowed to set a limit surely? Has anyone come across a clear statement on this specific topic?

"No employer shall levy or permit to be levied on any employee of his any charge in respect of anything done or provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions" My understanding is you cannot let an employee contribute a 'top up'. It doesn't matter whether all concerned are happy with the arrangement (or indeed prefer it over the alternative), an employer is not allowed to make any charge in respect of issue of PPE. Nothing wrong with giving them a (reasonable) budget and letting them choose, but you can't take a contribution from them and let them choose a more expensive pair.

I am with you Guru on that one - it is what we do for employees who want the 'branded' or top of the range boots etc.

I agree that it's acceptable to surcharge, provided the 'free' provision is enough to get a suitable and sufficient pair - if you only agree to pay the first £10 for instance, you're unlikely to be compliant with the regs. It's all in the wording - you're levying a charge on the employee for the upgrade and not for the PPE itself. If you don't do this, the other two options are either to restrict all employees to 'cheap' footwear (bad for the employee), or pay a fortune for top branded footwear for everyone (bad for the organisation) - neither of which is a reasonable approach IMHO.

To clarify: I agree that it could be everyone's preference, I agree it would not do harm, I agree that it meets the intention of the law, I agree that employees wanting to make a fashion statement is not good reason for the company paying above the odds for boots. I agree that a company that "provides suitable and sufficient protective footwear free of charge" is discharging its duties. I do not agree that a company that provides enough money for an employee to obtain their own sufficient footwear is discharging its duties in accordance with the law. I do not agree that a company that takes a contribution from an employee (at the employees request) in order to provide 'premium' or 'luxury' boots is complying with the regulations. I agree that if an employee wants a pair with bells and whistles it would be reasonable to ask them to pay the difference, but whether it is reasonable or not does not necessarily impact on whether it meets the requirements of the relevant regulations. The DSE regulations explicitly allow for the case of an employee who wants more costly glasses and states that the employer pays the basic costs and the employee can contribute more. I do not believe the PPE regulations allow the same leeway with respect to safety boots. If the employee wants a premium bells-and-whistles pair, my understanding is that there's nothing to stop him buying and wearing his own pair (provided they are sufficient etc) but he does that having taken the pair issued free by his employer, which he presumably never wears. Everyone loses out, yes (except boot manufacturers, I suppose), but I can't see any other way to read the regulations. I don't know of any case law that rules either way on this.

achrn; is not allowing the employee to 'top up' the most sensible and pragmatic approach? If not then as you say could end up with two pairs of boots for one person - the employer is out of pocket because they have purchased boots to sit on a shelf (or god forbid be sold on at a car boot sale or such like??) and the employee is out of pocket because he/she wanted something special that was not really warranted under the findings of the RA. We allow employees to 'top up' from the 'standard issue' footwear if they so desire to - their choice. We feel that this provides the best option all round and as safetysmurf said probably not likely to land us in court for a minor so called breach of the regulations (in your opinion).

As I think I said: I agree that it could be everyone's preference, I agree it would not do harm, I agree that it meets the intention of the law. It 'just' doesn't meet the explicitly stated requirements of the law, as I read (and understand) it. The law is not universally sensible and pragmatic.

We used to have the policy that we would pay for an S3 graded pair of work boots for our chaps but if they wanted a brand named pair then they could add towards the total cost - which was not much as we receive a hefty discount from our providers. Unfortunately we discovered that the lads were purchasing S1 & S2, P1, P2 & P3 boots - this went against our stipulation that they had to be S3 with SRC soles! We have therefore trialed many sets of S3 boot with SRC soles and informed the lads that they can select fromt he categories we have trialed - in the off chance that none of them fit we will take it up on a case by case basis. The guys are not complaining about this attitude and we know that we are providing the best for the guys without breaking the bank.

Word of caution from a finance point of view. If your company is VAT registered you fall fall of the law as you are claiming VAT back on an item you have only partly contributed towards. Effectively you are acting fraudulantly if you claim the full vat back on anything your employee has put money towards

20% as soon as your employees contributing according to our guidance

Achrn, I start working with your organisation and I'm required to wear safety footwear. I sit down with you and you show me a decent selection of suitable and sufficient safety footwear from your providers catalogue (prices ranging from £25 - £45 quid). I turn my nose up at them because of nothing more than not liking the look of them. I turn the page and see a lovely pair of premium safety footwear, that offer no more protection that the selection you showed me previously but they are priced at £100. Are you saying that you'd buy them without question? Just out of interest, my safety boots receive 5 star rating reviews for buyers and only cost £18. Best boots I've ever had, and wouldnt hesitate in buying again. http://www.dickiesstore.co.uk/review/FA23330/

"No employer shall levy or permit to be levied on any employee of his any charge in respect of anything done or provided in pursuance of any specific requirement of the relevant statutory provisions" In most cases described above, the employer provides the required safety footwear at the lowest possible cost to him/herself. Thus, no charge is levied as is required by law. Should the employee decide to purchase his/her own boots (to whatever cost) whilst recouping the price of the footwear that was originally on offer, this is an informed and voluntary decision. The law has been satisfied in the first part and cares little for the second.

Don't forget, to ensure compliance with the PPE regs you will need to undertake (and document if you wish to demonstrate compliance at a later date) an assessment of the suitabilty etc of the PPE - if you let employees effectively buy what they want you may find that you have to undertake numerous assessments to ensure complaince with the regs. IMHO the approach suggested by Grant 1962 is perfectly reasonable and allows for other boots to be considered where it is reasonably justifiable

Thinking about the vat further then John are you/your finance bods thus saying that we should be charging vat on goods that we have not paid vat on because we have passed them onto our employees? FYI we are retailers amongst other things so will also sell boots to customers (where no vat is applied) as well as using them ourselves. If a customer come in to buy boots from us to give to one of his members of staff - should he then be charging VAT to that employee?? I appreciate that you may not be a tax expert - but this does not seem very clear cut (are any tax/uk laws??) to me. Confused Stuart

No, I'm saying I would not buy them. You can't have them, unless you buy them for yourself - I won't stop you buying them for yourself and wearing them (provided they meet at least the standards of the boots I have selected). Dickies £18 boots http://www.dickiesstore.co.uk/review/FA23330/ are only S1. Insufficient for our use - we need S3 at least.

Hi achrn, In summary, your ok with your employees purchasing their own PPE, but against asking them to pay the difference from a basic to premium shoe is not in spirit with the requirements of the PPE regs?

achrn; we are not levying a charge on our employees - they decide to pay it - there is a subtle difference I feel - yes your argument would stand up if we were not providing free footwear but we do - if they want something different for no reason other than looks/fashion etc then we as employers should not have to pay for that. Also you say that it is ok for employees to buy their own - but not to contribute to buying a different pair - am I missing something there - but that sounds pretty much the same to me?! Qoute - 'No, my understanding of the law is that it's acceptable for employees to wear PPE they have purchased which meets the same performance specification as PPE they have been issued and that it is illegal to ask employees to contribute to the cost of PPE, even if they want to (in order to obtain PPE they consider to be better).'

Similar thing happens with specs for DSE users. We supply bog standard not very nice ones, or contribute to their choice through SLA with opticians.

I have never ever suggested otherwise. For some reason people seem to think I'm claiming employers should pay for any boots the employee fancies. I have never suggested anything of the sort. You're arguing with a straw man (again). It's not the same. There is no law saying that employees cannot buy safety boots. There is, however, a law saying employers cannot levy a charge on employees with respect to issue of PPE. Did you issue safety boots to employee X? Was a sum of money charged to him for those boots? Now if you give him free issue boots, the answers are yes and no respectively. That is legal. That remains the case whether or not he also buys himself other boots. However, if he chose higher-spec (or more fashionable, or a nicer colour, or whatever) boots and paid a contribution, then the answer to the second question is 'yes', and that is not legal, as I read the regulations.

We do not 'levy a charge' - the employee decides to pay it - which is very different to making them pay. I am confident as are many others that what we are doing is not going to get us into trouble.